DOCSLIB.ORG

Hlanagement of Carnivore Predation As a Means to Reduce Livestock Losses: the Study of Coyotes (Canis Latrans) in North America

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hlanagement of Carnivore Predation As a Means to Reduce Livestock Losses: the Study of Coyotes (Canis Latrans) in North America University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Publications Plant Health Inspection Service August 2003 hlanagement of carnivore predation as a means to reduce livestock losses: the study of coyotes (Canis latrans) in North America Eric M. Gese USDA/APHIS/WS/National Wildlife Research Center, Department of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Species, Utah State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Gese, Eric M., "hlanagement of carnivore predation as a means to reduce livestock losses: the study of coyotes (Canis latrans) in North America" (2003). USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications. 222. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/222 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USDA National Wildlife Research Center - Staff Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Gese, E. M. 2003. Management of carnivore predation as a means to reduce livestock losses: the study of coyotes (Canis latrans) in North America. Pages 85-102 in 1" Workshop sobre Pesquisa e Conserva@o de Cdvoros Neotropicais, Atibaia, Sao Paulo, Brasil. 85 hlanagement of carnivore predation as a means to reduce livestock losses: the study of coyotes (Caitis latrans) in North America Eric 31. ~ese' 'USD.%'?SHIS,?YSN~~~O~~~Wildlife Research Center, Department of Forest, Range, and I&'ildlife Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, LT 81322, US.!. Running head: Coyote depredation management Correspondence: Eric hl. Gese, USD.;VAPHISNSNational Kidlife Research Center, Department of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Sciences, Utah State University, Logan, UT 81322, US.% phone: 335-797-2512; Fax: 435-797-0288; email: [email protected] hlany carnivorepopulations throughout the world are declining due to expansion of human populations, habitat loss, illegal poaching, legal hunting, disease, habitat fragmentation, declines in native prey, and increased competition \vith livestock and other human land uses. A major obstacle facing consenation efForts, reintroduction programs,' and recovery plans for many carnivore species throughout the world is the continual issue of depredations by carnivores on agricultural interests (hlech 1996). In the United States, efforts to reintroduce andlor recover wol\ves (Canis hrpus) and -grizzly bears (UTXZISUTCIOS) in the northern Rocky Mountains has been met \\ith much opposition by - . the li\restock industn nith depredations on livestock cited as the main reason for resistence. Gainins local support for carnivore consewation and swifily dealing with depredation problems ~villal\vays be an issue for biologists and managers as human populations continue to expand into and reduce carnivore habitat increasing conflicts bemeen humans and carnivores (Mech 1996). Predation on domestic li\.estock and poultn by carni\.ores is a historical and continuing problem faced by asricult&al producers throu~hou;the xvorld (Harris 2nd Szunders 1993) In the United Stares alone. producers lost 273.000 sheep and lambs valued a1 S16.5 million lo predators in 1999 (U.S. Department of .%,oriculture 2000). These losses to predatars represented 36.79; of total losses to all causes. In 1999. depredations on sheep and lambs \sere xincipaliy caused by coyotes. C-allis iam.ar~s(61°%). dogs (1 6), mountain lions. Plrma cor~colo~~(6Cb). and bobcats. LJ.II.Yrrlfirs (jo,)Raies of loss orsheep and lambs due to specific predators variss feos;z?hical!v (Table 1) C'ai:iz ar:d c2!f losses ro predziors in the LS 1otzis3 147.090 head dll-inc X'? \vi5 32 es~imaied loss of S5 1.6 million (US.Department of Agriculture 2001). Coyotes caused 63.6% of predator losses on cattle and calves, followed by dogs (1 8%), and mountain lions and bobcats (7% combined). The loss of soats to all predators Tvas estimated to be about S3-3 million annually. M'hile losses cf poult^ to predators are not well documented, they are considered to be substantial. The coyote is a generalist, opportunistic carnivore that adapts to landscape modifications and human emironments, and is actually doing better today (in terms of population size and distribution) than when North -4merica was first senled by Europeans (lfoore and Parker 1992) As stated pre~iously,the coyote is one of the leading causes of depredations on domestic livestock in North .4merica. .4s such, no predator has probably received as much attention and persecution (current estimate >100,000 coyotes removed amually) in an attempt to reduce depredation losses. Due to public pressure and increasingly fragmented sheep operations (decline in sheep industry means fe\i ei flocks scattered over the landscape), Iarse-scale population reduction programs are becoming less pronounced. In contrast, techniques that more benign and focus on sol~ingthe actual depredation problem are receiking more attention. Non-lethal techniques are becomin~more popular and are readily accepted by the general public (Arthur 198 1). Hoi\.e\,er, after >30 years of research on methods to reduce predation by coyotes, it is quite clear that protecting livestock from coyotes is a complex endeavor. Each depredation event and management situation requires an assessment of the legal, social, economic, biolo,oical, ethical, and technical aspects (Kno\ilton et al. 1999). No one technique \sill solve the problem in all circumstances (ie., there is no magic bullet to solve all depredation situations) Successful resolution of conflicts liith predators involves an analysis of the . efficacy, selectivity, and efficiency of all the various management scenarios available (Knowlton et al Control techniques may be considered either correcti\.e (after a depredation e\.ent) or pre\.entive (before the event) Techniques can also be classed as lethal or non-lethal. Selecti\,ity of the technique is extremely important ~ihenattempting to actually so1i.e the depredation problem General population reduction through lethal means may nor sake the depredation problem (e g . 1 Connor et a1 199s). Techniques that se!ecri\.el) remo1.e the ofendins indi\-idual (Sacks et al. 1999a.h: Blej~vaset al. 1002) are preferred o\.er non-selecti\.e technjquss rhar the killers may a\.oii once the .\proSlem~animal is identified (Linnell et al. 1990j. hlethojs that are more selecrii-e fcr the targer species are also preferred (Knoiilton et al. 1999). The puqas: oithis paper is to prese:: the \.arious techniques that nere oe\-eloped to reduce or pre\ent depreda~ionson livesrock by e Th-sc r?ch~iques2r? I!?:. resulr of decades ofir.s.;.?.r;h. s\,z!-?:ic!c. zn? ?indin: \<.hi!e ::.. .a-b-i-,Laq. \\+---.c :?\elsped.- Car cqores. ds?rrdarian p:sSls~.s for ::c..:~-ni\~rs ;?sties in Br~z.. may also be controlled in similar situations. Most of these techniques have direct application to carnivores in Brazil of similar body size (10-20 kg) and beha\ioral characteristics, and likely t\ould be useful for depredation problems invol\ing many of the different species of felids, canids, ursids. and mustelids in Brazil. Some of rhese techniques uill not be useful for some ofthe larger carnivores (e g., jaguars, Parltliera or~ca)due to their innate predatory abilities (i.e , jaguars would probably Lll gard animals). NOS-LETH-IL TECHSIQCES .?lost non-lethal procedures fall aithin ihe operational punie~vof the agricultural producer. Most livestock producers (83%) utilize at least one non-lethal method to prevent or reduce predation (Table 2). During 1999, producers spent S8.S million on non-lethal methods to protect sheep and lambs, and S184.9 million to protect cattle and calves (U.S. Department ofAgriculture 2000). \$Tl"nile there are reports of success uith some non-lethal methods, failur?s are common, few have been subjected to critical evaluation or testing, and none have pro\.en universally successhl (Knowlton et al. 1999). Li~~es/ockHusbaridiyPractices. One of the first lines of defense against depredations that a li\.estock producer can enact themselves is examining, and perhaps modifiing, their animal husbandr). practices (Robel et al. 1981, Wagner 1988, Acorn and Dorrance 1998). Several livestock management practices have been suggested as a means of reducing depredation losses. As a general rule, the more time you spend with your livestock the less likely a predation event will occur. Several recommendations follow: (1) Using herders is a time-tested tradition that can allexiate predation. (7) Dead livestock can anract coyotes and other predators. Thus, removal or burial of carrion will not encourage predators to remain in the area and perhaps !ill livestock. Taking carcasses to a renderins plant can also be useful, althou,oh rendering plants generally will not accept sheep carcasses because the wool fouls the rendering equipment. (3) Confinin: or concentrating Fiocks durin: periods of wlnerabilin. (e ,o.: at nizht or during lambing) can decrease depredation \ p~oblems Call-es and lambs are \e<i \ulnerable zfier binh, as uell 2s en es or co~vsfollowin: a cifSculr birrh. Remo\.ing the afterbizh or stillborn lambs and cz!\es can Z!~Or~duce a;trzcti\.eness of rhe area foI!o\vin~a hinh. Lambs that are ~veakor lishr-\\.eighr are espcciall!. \ulnerable ro predators 2nd confininn- them for 1-2 weeks \\.ill reduce their porenrial ro be killed. (1)Shfd lambins, s!.nchronizing birthins. and keeping younz animals in areas with little co\.er an: . in close proximity ro . ..-, huazr, ai~i\.i:!. \\iil also rediize the ?.ik ofprsd?:ion Ths lxyrs: cra:\czz; o: :nsx p:ocedures is , .. , - , ., , .7,..:.-. :he\ ;rze:ail! require aa21ao:ia: :sior::j 2:- exor. zni K?! ..n:] sf,r\ :::? dnss; ofpredario- (Knowlton et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Backyard Food
    Suggested Grades: 2nd - 5th BACKYARD FOOD WEB Wildlife Champions at Home Science Experiment 2-LS4-1: Make observations of plants and animals to compare the diversity of life in different habitats. What is a food web? All living things on earth are either producers, consumers or decomposers. Producers are organisms that create their own food through the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is when a living thing uses sunlight, water and nutrients from the soil to create its food. Most plants are producers. Consumers get their energy by eating other living things. Consumers can be either herbivores (eat only plants – like deer), carnivores (eat only meat – like wolves) or omnivores (eat both plants and meat - like humans!) Decomposers are organisms that get their energy by eating dead plants or animals. After a living thing dies, decomposers will break down the body and turn it into nutritious soil for plants to use. Mushrooms, worms and bacteria are all examples of decomposers. A food web is a picture that shows how energy (food) passes through an ecosystem. The easiest way to build a food web is by starting with the producers. Every ecosystem has plants that make their own food through photosynthesis. These plants are eaten by herbivorous consumers. These herbivores are then hunted by carnivorous consumers. Eventually, these carnivores die of illness or old age and become food for decomposers. As decomposers break down the carnivore’s body, they create delicious nutrients in the soil which plants will use to live and grow! When drawing a food web, it is important to show the flow of energy (food) using arrows.
    [Show full text]
  • Predators As Agents of Selection and Diversification
    diversity Review Predators as Agents of Selection and Diversification Jerald B. Johnson * and Mark C. Belk Evolutionary Ecology Laboratories, Department of Biology, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-801-422-4502 Received: 6 October 2020; Accepted: 29 October 2020; Published: 31 October 2020 Abstract: Predation is ubiquitous in nature and can be an important component of both ecological and evolutionary interactions. One of the most striking features of predators is how often they cause evolutionary diversification in natural systems. Here, we review several ways that this can occur, exploring empirical evidence and suggesting promising areas for future work. We also introduce several papers recently accepted in Diversity that demonstrate just how important and varied predation can be as an agent of natural selection. We conclude that there is still much to be done in this field, especially in areas where multiple predator species prey upon common prey, in certain taxonomic groups where we still know very little, and in an overall effort to actually quantify mortality rates and the strength of natural selection in the wild. Keywords: adaptation; mortality rates; natural selection; predation; prey 1. Introduction In the history of life, a key evolutionary innovation was the ability of some organisms to acquire energy and nutrients by killing and consuming other organisms [1–3]. This phenomenon of predation has evolved independently, multiple times across all known major lineages of life, both extinct and extant [1,2,4]. Quite simply, predators are ubiquitous agents of natural selection. Not surprisingly, prey species have evolved a variety of traits to avoid predation, including traits to avoid detection [4–6], to escape from predators [4,7], to withstand harm from attack [4], to deter predators [4,8], and to confuse or deceive predators [4,8].
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Human Disturbance on Terrestrial Apex Predators
    diversity Review Effects of Human Disturbance on Terrestrial Apex Predators Andrés Ordiz 1,2,* , Malin Aronsson 1,3, Jens Persson 1 , Ole-Gunnar Støen 4, Jon E. Swenson 2 and Jonas Kindberg 4,5 1 Grimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-730 91 Riddarhyttan, Sweden; [email protected] (M.A.); [email protected] (J.P.) 2 Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Postbox 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway; [email protected] 3 Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden 4 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway; [email protected] (O.-G.S.); [email protected] (J.K.) 5 Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The effects of human disturbance spread over virtually all ecosystems and ecological communities on Earth. In this review, we focus on the effects of human disturbance on terrestrial apex predators. We summarize their ecological role in nature and how they respond to different sources of human disturbance. Apex predators control their prey and smaller predators numerically and via behavioral changes to avoid predation risk, which in turn can affect lower trophic levels. Crucially, reducing population numbers and triggering behavioral responses are also the effects that human disturbance causes to apex predators, which may in turn influence their ecological role. Some populations continue to be at the brink of extinction, but others are partially recovering former ranges, via natural recolonization and through reintroductions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethical Consistency of Animal Equality
    1 The ethical consistency of animal equality Stijn Bruers, Sept 2013, DRAFT 2 Contents 0. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 5 0.1 SUMMARY: TOWARDS A COHERENT THEORY OF ANIMAL EQUALITY ........................................................................ 9 1. PART ONE: ETHICAL CONSISTENCY ......................................................................................................... 18 1.1 THE BASIC ELEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 18 a) The input data: moral intuitions .......................................................................................................... 18 b) The method: rule universalism............................................................................................................. 20 1.2 THE GOAL: CONSISTENCY AND COHERENCE ..................................................................................................... 27 1.3 THE PROBLEM: MORAL ILLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 30 a) Optical illusions .................................................................................................................................... 30 b) Moral illusions ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Plants Are Producers! Draw the Different Producers Below
    Name: ______________________________ The Unique Producer Every food chain begins with a producer. Plants are producers. They make their own food, which creates energy for them to grow, reproduce and survive. Being able to make their own food makes them unique; they are the only living things on Earth that can make their own source of food energy. Of course, they require sun, water and air to thrive. Given these three essential ingredients, you will have a healthy plant to begin the food chain. All plants are producers! Draw the different producers below. Apple Tree Rose Bushes Watermelon Grasses Plant Blueberry Flower Fern Daisy Bush List the three essential needs that every producer must have in order to live. © 2009 by Heather Motley Name: ______________________________ Producers can make their own food and energy, but consumers are different. Living things that have to hunt, gather and eat their food are called consumers. Consumers have to eat to gain energy or they will die. There are four types of consumers: omnivores, carnivores, herbivores and decomposers. Herbivores are living things that only eat plants to get the food and energy they need. Animals like whales, elephants, cows, pigs, rabbits, and horses are herbivores. Carnivores are living things that only eat meat. Animals like owls, tigers, sharks and cougars are carnivores. You would not catch a plant in these animals’ mouths. Then, we have the omnivores. Omnivores will eat both plants and animals to get energy. Whichever food source is abundant or available is what they will eat. Animals like the brown bear, dogs, turtles, raccoons and even some people are omnivores.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Planktivorous Fishes: Their Evolution, Feeding Behaviours, Selectivities, and Impacts
    Hydrobiologia 146: 97-167 (1987) 97 0 Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht - Printed in the Netherlands A review of planktivorous fishes: Their evolution, feeding behaviours, selectivities, and impacts I Xavier Lazzaro ORSTOM (Institut Français de Recherche Scientifique pour le Développement eri Coopération), 213, rue Lu Fayette, 75480 Paris Cedex IO, France Present address: Laboratorio de Limrzologia, Centro de Recursos Hidricob e Ecologia Aplicada, Departamento de Hidraulica e Sarzeamento, Universidade de São Paulo, AV,DI: Carlos Botelho, 1465, São Carlos, Sï? 13560, Brazil t’ Mail address: CI? 337, São Carlos, SI? 13560, Brazil Keywords: planktivorous fish, feeding behaviours, feeding selectivities, electivity indices, fish-plankton interactions, predator-prey models Mots clés: poissons planctophages, comportements alimentaires, sélectivités alimentaires, indices d’électivité, interactions poissons-pltpcton, modèles prédateurs-proies I Résumé La vision classique des limnologistes fut de considérer les interactions cntre les composants des écosystè- mes lacustres comme un flux d’influence unidirectionnel des sels nutritifs vers le phytoplancton, le zoo- plancton, et finalement les poissons, par l’intermédiaire de processus de contrôle successivement physiqucs, chimiques, puis biologiques (StraSkraba, 1967). L‘effet exercé par les poissons plaiictophages sur les commu- nautés zoo- et phytoplanctoniques ne fut reconnu qu’à partir des travaux de HrbáEek et al. (1961), HrbAEek (1962), Brooks & Dodson (1965), et StraSkraba (1965). Ces auteurs montrèrent (1) que dans les étangs et lacs en présence de poissons planctophages prédateurs visuels. les conimuiiautés‘zooplanctoniques étaient com- posées d’espèces de plus petites tailles que celles présentes dans les milieux dépourvus de planctophages et, (2) que les communautés zooplanctoniques résultantes, composées d’espèces de petites tailles, influençaient les communautés phytoplanctoniques.
    [Show full text]
  • Can More K-Selected Species Be Better Invaders?
    Diversity and Distributions, (Diversity Distrib.) (2007) 13, 535–543 Blackwell Publishing Ltd BIODIVERSITY Can more K-selected species be better RESEARCH invaders? A case study of fruit flies in La Réunion Pierre-François Duyck1*, Patrice David2 and Serge Quilici1 1UMR 53 Ӷ Peuplements Végétaux et ABSTRACT Bio-agresseurs en Milieu Tropical ӷ CIRAD Invasive species are often said to be r-selected. However, invaders must sometimes Pôle de Protection des Plantes (3P), 7 chemin de l’IRAT, 97410 St Pierre, La Réunion, France, compete with related resident species. In this case invaders should present combina- 2UMR 5175, CNRS Centre d’Ecologie tions of life-history traits that give them higher competitive ability than residents, Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CEFE), 1919 route de even at the expense of lower colonization ability. We test this prediction by compar- Mende, 34293 Montpellier Cedex, France ing life-history traits among four fruit fly species, one endemic and three successive invaders, in La Réunion Island. Recent invaders tend to produce fewer, but larger, juveniles, delay the onset but increase the duration of reproduction, survive longer, and senesce more slowly than earlier ones. These traits are associated with higher ranks in a competitive hierarchy established in a previous study. However, the endemic species, now nearly extinct in the island, is inferior to the other three with respect to both competition and colonization traits, violating the trade-off assumption. Our results overall suggest that the key traits for invasion in this system were those that *Correspondence: Pierre-François Duyck, favoured competition rather than colonization. CIRAD 3P, 7, chemin de l’IRAT, 97410, Keywords St Pierre, La Réunion Island, France.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ecological Framework for Contextualizing Carnivore–Livestock Conflict
    Special Section Review An ecological framework for contextualizing carnivore–livestock conflict Christine E. Wilkinson ,1 ∗ Alex McInturff,1 Jennifer R. B. Miller,1,2 Veronica Yovovich,1 Kaitlyn M. Gaynor,1 Kendall Calhoun,1 Harshad Karandikar,1 Jeff Vance Martin,3 Phoebe Parker-Shames,1 Avery Shawler,1 Amy Van Scoyoc,1 and Justin S. Brashares1 1Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, 139 Mulford Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720, U.S.A. 2Defenders of Wildlife, 1130 17th St. NW, Washington DC, 20036, U.S.A. 3Department of Geography, University of California, 505 McCone Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720, U.S.A. Abstract: Carnivore predation on livestock is a complex management and policy challenge, yet it is also intrinsi- cally an ecological interaction between predators and prey. Human–wildlife interactions occur in socioecological systems in which human and environmental processes are closely linked. However, underlying human–wildlife conflict and key to unpacking its complexity are concrete and identifiable ecological mechanisms that lead to predation events. To better understand how ecological theory accords with interactions between wild predators and domestic prey, we developed a framework to describe ecological drivers of predation on livestock. We based this framework on foundational ecological theory and current research on interactions between predators and domestic prey. We used this framework to examine ecological mechanisms (e.g., density-mediated effects, behaviorally mediated effects, and optimal foraging theory) through which specific management interventions operate, and we analyzed the ecological determinants of failure and success of management interventions in 3 case studies: snow leopards (Panthera uncia), wolves (Canis lupus), and cougars (Puma concolor).
    [Show full text]
  • Herbivore Physiological Response to Predation Risk and Implications for Ecosystem Nutrient Dynamics
    Herbivore physiological response to predation risk and implications for ecosystem nutrient dynamics Dror Hawlena and Oswald J. Schmitz1 School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511 Communicated by Thomas W. Schoener, University of California, Davis, CA, June 29, 2010 (received for review January 4, 2010) The process of nutrient transfer throughan ecosystem is an important lower the quantity of energy that can be allocated to production determinant of production, food-chain length, and species diversity. (20–23). Consequently, stress-induced constraints on herbivore The general view is that the rate and efficiency of nutrient transfer up production should lower the demand for N-rich proteins (24). the food chain is constrained by herbivore-specific capacity to secure Herbivores also have low capacity to store excess nutrients (24), N-rich compounds for survival and production. Using feeding trials and hence should seek plants with high digestible carbohydrate with artificial food, we show, however, that physiological stress- content to minimize the costs of ingesting and excreting excess N. response of grasshopper herbivores to spider predation risk alters the Such stress-induced shift in nutrient demand may be especially nature of the nutrient constraint. Grasshoppers facing predation risk important in terrestrial systems in which digestible carbohydrate had higher metabolic rates than control grasshoppers. Elevated represents a small fraction of total plant carbohydrate-C, and may metabolism accordingly increased requirements for dietary digestible be limiting even under risk-free conditions (25). Moreover, stress carbohydrate-C to fuel-heightened energy demands. Moreover, di- responses include break down of body proteins to produce glucose gestible carbohydrate-C comprises a small fraction of total plant (i.e., gluconeogenesis) (14), which requires excretion of N-rich tissue-C content, so nutrient transfer between plants and herbivores waste compounds (ammonia or primary amines) (26).
    [Show full text]
  • Interspecific Killing Among Mammalian Carnivores
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Digital.CSIC vol. 153, no. 5 the american naturalist may 1999 Interspeci®c Killing among Mammalian Carnivores F. Palomares1,* and T. M. Caro2,² 1. Department of Applied Biology, EstacioÂn BioloÂgica de DonÄana, thought to act as keystone species in the top-down control CSIC, Avda. MarõÂa Luisa s/n, 41013 Sevilla, Spain; of terrestrial ecosystems (Terborgh and Winter 1980; Ter- 2. Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology and borgh 1992; McLaren and Peterson 1994). One factor af- Center for Population Biology, University of California, Davis, fecting carnivore populations is interspeci®c killing by California 95616 other carnivores (sometimes called intraguild predation; Submitted February 9, 1998; Accepted December 11, 1998 Polis et al. 1989), which has been hypothesized as having direct and indirect effects on population and community structure that may be more complex than the effects of either competition or predation alone (see, e.g., Latham 1952; Rosenzweig 1966; Mech 1970; Polis and Holt 1992; abstract: Interspeci®c killing among mammalian carnivores is Holt and Polis 1997). Currently, there is renewed interest common in nature and accounts for up to 68% of known mortalities in some species. Interactions may be symmetrical (both species kill in intraguild predation from a conservation standpoint each other) or asymmetrical (one species kills the other), and in since top predator removal is thought to release other some interactions adults of one species kill young but not adults of predator populations with consequences for lower trophic the other.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pattern and Cost of Carnivore Predation on Livestock in Maasai Homesteads of Amboseli Ecosystem, Kenya: Insights from a Carnivore Compensation Programme
    Vol. 6(7), pp. 502-521, July 2014 DOI: 10.5897/IJBC2014.0678 Article Number: 492C21546199 International Journal of Biodiversity ISSN 2141-243X Copyright © 2014 and Conservation Author(s) retain the copyright of this article http://www.academicjournals.org/IJBC Full Length Research Paper The pattern and cost of carnivore predation on livestock in maasai homesteads of Amboseli ecosystem, Kenya: Insights from a carnivore compensation programme Moses Makonjio Okello1*, Richard Bonham2 and Tom Hill2 1SFS Center for Wildlife Management Studies, Kenya, P.O. Box 27743- 00505 Nairobi, Kenya. 2Big Life Foundation, Kenya. P. O. Box 24133 - 00502, Nairobi, Kenya. Received 3 January, 2014; Accepted 16 June, 2014 Several papers have been written on the experiences, successes and challenges facing compensation schemes for wildlife, some of whom criticize the strategy while others support it. What is clear among the Maasai is that the burden of conserving wildlife, particularly predators that roam freely on their land and predate upon their livestock, is too great to bear: support in terms of financial compensation and mitigation strategies to reduce socio-economic loss from livestock deaths would help communities tolerate predators, and discourage some among them to kill carnivores in retaliation. Such programs in the Amboseli ecosystem are critical for the long term future of wildlife conservation. The Mbirikani Predator Compensation Fund (MPCF) is such a compensation scheme administered by the Big Life Foundation since 2003. Data from Big Life Foundation’s monitoring records of compensation paid between 2008 and 2012 were analyzed in order to establish insights into the pattern and cost of predation in the Amboseli ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • Dynamical Analysis of Predator-Prey Model Leslie-Gower with Omnivore
    Predator-Prey Model Leslie-Gower with Omnivore 126 (Exviani et al) Dynamical Analysis of Predator-Prey Model Leslie-Gower with Omnivore Rina Exviani1*, Wuryansari Muharini Kusumawinahyu2, Noor Hidayat3 1Master Program of Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia 2Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, University of Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia Abstract This article discussed a dynamical analysis on a model of predator-prey Leslie-Gower with omnivores which is modified by Lotka-Volterra model with omnivore. The dynamical analysis was done by determining the equilibrium point with its existing condition and analyzing the local stability of the equilibrium point. Based on the analysis, there are seven points of equilibrium. Three of them always exist while the four others exist under certain conditions. Four points of equilibrium, which are unstable, while the others three equilibrium point are local asymptotically stable under certain conditions. Moreover, numerical simulations were also conducted to illustrate the analytics. The results of numerical simulations agree with the results of the dynamical analysis. Keywords: local stability, omnivore, predator-prey models, the equilibrium point. INTRODUCTION species are omnivores. This model is constructed Lotka-Volterra model was firstly introduced by assumming there are just three species in such Lotka in 1925 and Volterra in 1926 [1]. Lotka- an ecosystem. The first species, called as prey Volterra’s study has produced a simple model of (rice plant), the prey for the second and the third predation or interaction between two species in species. The second species, called as predator an ecosystem. They also have introduced classi- (carrion), only feeds on the first species and can cal Lotka-Volterra model, which is currently de- extinct with prey.
    [Show full text]